Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Data Suggests Early Universe was Superfluid

Posted by timothy on from the was-perfect-for-early-pancakes dept.

Ted writes "Experiments at the worlds largest nuclear collider, RHIC, at Brookhaven National Laboratory reveal striking new features of the state of the early Universe. With RHICs enormous collision energy, the researchers can create matter that is composed of the fundamental building blocks of nature, quarks and gluons, in a state with temperatures of more than 1000 billion degrees. The Universe is believed to have been in this state in the first microsecond after the Big Bang. Later the quarks and gluons were trapped in the nuclear particles that the visible universe is composed of today. Until recently, researchers have thought that the quarks and gluons formed a gas. The latest results from RHIC, however, indicate that under the extreme conditions just around the phase transition from quarks and gluons to ordinary matter, the quarks and gluons behaved as a liquid - in fact an almost perfect liquid."

3 of 405 comments (clear)

  1. Irish people have always known by Timesprout · · Score: 0, Redundant

    the universe was formed from Guinness, a truly super fluid.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  2. Nope by Icephreak1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ..the researchers can create matter that is composed of the fundamental building blocks of nature, quarks and gluons..

    Nothing is more fundamental than simple awareness, from which all matter originates. Quarks and gluons cannot be final as long as they require a conscious observer to give them context. Quarks and gluons are comprised of consciousness, the universe's true primordial building block. Any scientist that fails to make that observation is missing the only part of their theory that truly matters.

    - IP

    1. Re:Nope by Icephreak1 · · Score: 0, Redundant


      Get back to us when you want to discuss actual experimentally-verified physics, not unjustifiable assertions that you wish were true.
      Physics. Its own foundations are based upon truths which are assumed to be self-evident. Only assumptions. That's what axioms are, yes? But has anyone ever attempted to prove those axioms true? Physics is nothing more than an ongoing exercise in subjectivity. Funny thing is, loop those axioms back in on themselves; attempt to use physics to explain physics and up comes paradox, inconsistency, incompleteness. If you're content with that, great, believe with all your might that science is capable of reaching infinitely into the universe's bottomless pit of truth. Only know that a finite number of axioms can only reveal a finite number of truths, and it might not do so reliably either. Put your axioms into action and there's always a risk of the result being tainted with incompletion. With a failure rate, any failure rate, even if infinitesimal, how reliable can physics be beyond explaining simple things?

      There will never be a theory of everything. Face it. There will never in a zillion lifetimes come a neat little equation capable of explaining everything and anything. And scientists will toil for an eternity arrogantly believing they'll solve it. Science cannot provide us with the answer to the universe's purpose.

      Tell me, when will physics declare everything in the universe answered? When will physics no longer be needed? Answer, it will always be needed, and that poses a problem to the intrepid scientist hoping to explain everything.

      Physics exists squrely within of time, but do something as simple as close your eyes to sleep, what becomes of your physics then? What becomes of you, all of matter, space and time?

      - IP